Quality and the integrity of
the academic economy
Prof. Bruce Macfarlane

NIAD-UE Study Meeting, Tokyo, 28th July 2015

My argument
1) The integrity of the academic economy iscentral to the maintenance of quality in higher
education2) Professional virtues or values key to integrity
are being eroded by the forces of performativity,academic capitalism and academic cronyism

2The virtues of academic practice: a reminder
Teaching

Respectfulness, sensitivity, pride, courage,
fairness, openness, restraint, collegiality

ResearchCourage, respectfulness, resoluteness,sincerity, humility, reflexivityServiceBenevolence, collegiality, loyalty,guardianship, engagement
Macfarlane (2004; 2007; 2009)3Merton‟s C.U.D.O.S.
Communism – intellectual property should be freely shared (思想や理論の共同所有)
Universalism – academics are concerned with the pursuit of
the truth (真実を追求する普遍性)

Disinterestedness – academics should be impartial about theresults of research; not emotionally biased (私情を挟まない公平)
Organized Skepticism – all knowledge claims should be open
to critical scrutiny (組織的に持つ懐疑主義)
Merton, R. K. (1942). The Normative Structure of Science. In N. Storer (Ed.) The sociology of science:
Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267–278). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press4

Virtues and their vices: some examples
ResearchVice
cowardicemanipulativeness

Virtuecouragerespectfulness

Vicerecklessness
partiality

Teaching
Vice
arbitrariness
defensiveness

Virtuefairness
opennessVice
inflexibility
quiescenceServiceViceremotenessegoismVirtuecollegiality
guardianshipVicecliquishness
sectarianism

5The academic economy
Cultural capital(Publications/titles/awards)
Economic capital(Funding/resources)

Socialcapital(networks/relationships/collaborations)

6

The visible and invisible
academic economy
TitlesPapersAwards
Projects
ValuesAcademicvirtues

Beliefs
Fears

Academic
Vices

PrejudicesExperiences„Kankei‟
関係Relationships(Based on Hall‟s (1976) analogy of culture)7

3 threats to academic integrity
Academic performativity 学術研究における点数稼ぎ主義
Rewarding academic work on the basis of targets andperformance indicators
Academic capitalism 学術界での利益至上主義
Commercial exploitation of academic work
Academic cronyism 適性等関係なく地位を与える等のえこひいき
Relationships based on gifts and favors within academic
networks to trade privileges and opportunities without regard tomerit8Academic Performativity
学術研究における点数稼ぎ主義
Rewarding academic work on the basis of targets andperformance indicators (eg research outputs; teaching scores)
Consequences:- Undermines riskier research and longitudinal investigation- Lack of commitment to service and teaching roles- Concealment and exaggeration of research findings andother forms of misconduct (eg plagiarism 盗作, citationrings)

9

Academic Capitalism
学術界での利益至上主義
Generating income and/or additional resources beyond thereceipt of an academic salaryConsequences:- Funding for research valued over originality and curiositydriven work
- Distortion of research results to meet expectations ofsponsors- Delays in sharing research data due to commercial
contracts- Commercial exploitation of teaching and online materials 10

Academic Cronyism
適性等関係なく地位を与える等のえこひいき
Using academic networks and connections to gain privileges
without regard to merit resulting in the trading of gifts andfavors
Consequences:- Appointments and promotions determined by social
relationships rather than intellectual merit- Reinforcement of teacher-student lineage reducing social
mobility within the academic profession- Distortion of attribution of authorship credit- A reciprocal economy of gifts and favors
11

Illustration: multiple authorship• Growth of new multi-disciplinary research fields• Increasing methodological sophistication• Dominance of empiricism over theory-oriented scholarship• Growth of opportunities to collaborate internationally• Increasing competition and performative pressures inacademic life

Endersby (1996); Park (2014)12

Well known authorship abuses and effects• Gift authorship: someone is credited as an author who has
not made a significant contribution• Ghost authorship: the real author of thepaper uncredited• White Bull effect: pressure or coercion fromsenior researchers to get unmerited authorshipcredit (Kwok, 2005)• The Matthew effect: well-known researchers
tend to get more credit than less well known authors
in multi-authored work (Merton, 1968)

13

Who is an author?
Authorship should be based on substantial contributions towhich of these 3 conditions?
1) Conception and design, or analysis and interpretation ofdata?

2) Drafting the article or revising it critically for intellectual
content?
3) Final approval of the version to be published?

1414

The Vancouver protocol
Authorship should be based on substantial contributions to
ALL of the following 3 conditions:
1) Conception and design, or analysis and interpretation ofdata; AND
2) Drafting the article or revising it critically for intellectualcontent; AND
3) Final approval of the version to be publishedICMJE (1978)
15

Hong Kong case study• Online questionnaire survey based on 4 case scenarios toinvestigate ethical issues surrounding multiple authorship• Lessen impact of social desirability reporting• Sent to all academic members (299) of education
schools/faculties in Hong Kong universities. Response rateof 36% (108 respondents)• Minimal differences on basis of academic rank, gender,age, or country where they obtained their PhD

16

Who is an author?
Respondents who thought that meeting any ONE of these
conditions constituted legitimate authorship (108respondents)
1) Conception and design (78%), or analysis andinterpretation of data (47%)?
2) Drafting the article or revising it critically for intellectual
content (76%)?
3) Final approval of the version to be published (13%)?

(Macfarlane, 2015 unpublished data)17

Who should ALWAYS receive an authorshipcredit?
60

The grant holder

4019The researchsupervisor

81
13

Any research teammember87%

050
Yes, always

No, not always

10018

Case scenario 1: The co-authors
Former PhD
supervisor

Prof. Smith
Head of Department

Dr. Jones
Assistant Professor
Former PhD
student

Design the study

50%

Conduct interviews

50%

Transcribe& analyse data
Write the paper
19

Suggested solutions (108 responses)
List names in

16%
Make your own
suggestion

Make Prof. Smith
first author as
7% the senior

38%

32%
NB 3% nil response

4%
Toss a coin

Select person whoneeds a firstauthorship credit
the most for career
20Performative pressures„Dr. Jones needs first authorship more for careeradvancement.‟ (Male, Full Prof.)„Select Dr. Jones because he needs the credit most for theattainment of tenure.‟ (Female, Assistant Prof.)„Based on my experiences and interactions with my mentors,
they would give the first authorship to the junior one,
especially under the pressure of tenure and promotion.‟(Female, Assistant Prof.)„Hopefully Prof. Smith would realize that s/he probably
doesn‟t need 1st authorship as much as Dr. Jones.‟ (Male,Assistant Prof.)21

Case scenario 2: The research student
PhDsupervisor

Dr. Yan
PhD supervisor

The researchstudent
PhDstudent

Met once a monthfor 3 years

Design/conception

Given feedback onthesis

Data gathering &analysis

Encourages student towrite a paper

Writes a paper basedon thesis

Comments on draft,makes suggestions

22

The research student
1) The research student should be the sole author (23%)„I think only commenting on the paper does not entitle anauthorship.‟ (Female, PDF)
2) The paper should have two authors and the supervisor
should be the second author (77%)„I think that Dr. Yan should be the second author given thathe/she is the supervisor, and have provided feedback on thework (even if the feedback is only small and may not be very
constructive.)‟ (Female, Associate Prof.)23

Case scenario 3: The project teamProf. Chen
(Full professor)

Dr. Lee(Assistantprofessor)

Dr. Wong(Post-DoctoralFellow)

Develops
proposal& gets
funding

Organises& chairs
research teammeetings

Designs
research
instrument

Oversees
work ofDr. Wong

Collects &analyses alldataMakes minor
amendments topaperWrites thepaper forpublication
24

Prof Chen (full professor)

First author
Second author
Third author

Dr Lee (Assistant Prof)

Dr Wong (PDF)

020406025

Case scenario 4: The research assistant
Recruits theRAProf. Cash(Fundedproject PI)

works forProf. Cash

The research
Assistant(mastersstudent)

Obtains fundingfor projectConducts literature
review

Designsquestionnaire

Pilots and amends
questionnaire

Makes minor
amendments to paper& submits it to a journal

Sends out questionnaire,
analyses all responses
Drafts full paper

26

Who should be the first author?
Prof. Cash should be the first author (62%)„The one who writes the proposal and gets funding always
deserves to have the first authorship (unless he/she gets
someone else to write for it). Supervisor is supervisor‟ (Female,Associate Prof.)
The research student should be the first author (37%)„…the Professor does not write the paper or a substantial partof it. Why should he deserve authorship?‟ (Female, AssistantProf.)„Under normal circumstances the PI will be the first author,
however, sometimes is good to help junior people to succeed 27
inthe future.‟ (Male, Associate Prof.)

The gift economy• Gift authorship: authorship credit is gifted on thebasis of indebtedness, gratitude or pressure fromothers• Power ordering: author order is determined on thebasis of academic hierarchy• Gift ordering: author order is determined on thebasis of career and/or performative needs
28Gift authorship: pressure & indebtedness„Meeting once a month for 3 years is substantial contributions
and deserves co-authorship.‟ (Female, Assistant Prof.)„I was repeatedly asked by my department head to put hisname on my articles despite the fact he had never been
involved in building the conceptual framework, thesubsequent data collection and the writing up of themanuscript.‟ (Female, Associate Prof.)„I have seen students that feel indebted towards his/hersupervisor, and s/he wants to add the supervisor as a second
author (not under any pressure but rather sense ofgratitude).‟ (Male, Assistant Prof.)29

Gift ordering: who needs to be the 1st
author the most?
„I think both scholars should sit down and talk about the issueof authorship of a publication, as it has great impact on
promotion, application for tenure and so forth.‟ (Male,Assistant Prof.)„Select Dr. Jones because he needs the credit most for theattainment of tenure.‟ (Female, Assistant Prof.)„Based on my experiences and interactions with my mentors,
they would give the first authorship to the junior one,
especially under the pressure of tenure and promotion.‟30(Female, Assistant Prof.)Power ordering: the „boss‟ comes first„[in determining first authorship]…the main point is who
gains funding for research.‟ (Male, PDF)„… under normal circumstance, the PI of the project would be
the first author.‟ (Male, Associate Prof.)„I think that Prof. Chen should be the first author given thathe brought in the funding, and likely that he hired Dr. Wongas the post-doctoral fellow.‟ (Female, Associate Prof.)„I both gave a “gift” authorship to my supervisor who didn't
write the paper…..I was forced to include a name of a person
who obtained research funding but did not write a word of31
the paper…‟ (Female, Assistant Prof.)

The white bull effect„I believe only those who contributed to thearticle should be considered as authors. Freeriding is a disgraceful behavior in academia
and for the advance of science particularly
when it is done by senior faculty or people
with power to do it, which do it because they
feel entitled to.‟(Male, Assistant Prof.)32

Does it matter? Yes, it does
• If the wrong person gets authorship credit this is amisrepresentation of the truth (same as data fraud)• Over-crediting an individual academic can result in themfalsely being seen as an expert (when they are not)• Exaggeration and concealment of authorship can damage
academic careers, particularly those of early career
researchers• Universities are institutions trusted by the public to have acommitment to the truth. If universities turn a blind eye toauthorship fraud, why should they be trusted?

33

The visible and invisible
academic economy of authorship

Publication
出版

Academic
capitalism

Manipulation of
Academic
author order 巧妙に performativity
操る出版の指図
Self-citation 引用行為
Self-plagiarism 自身の盗用

Academic
cronyism

Self-censorship 自身の検閲
Gift authorship 文献の贈与

Ghost authorship
ゴーストライター

Plagiarism 盗作

34

Concluding thoughts• Academic integrity is central to the credibility ofuniversities and the academic profession• Many ethical issues in academic practice are „fine grained‟
or invisible• Multiple authorship is a fine grained issue where thehierarchical power, cronyism and performative pressures
combine to produce abuses• Quality assurance and university authorities need toaddress fine grained issues in enhancing their role as theguardians of public trust in higher education35

Gosei-chou
Arigato gozai mashita!
Bruce Macfarlane
Professor of Higher Education
University of Southampton
bmachku@gmail.com(Linked in, researchgate, academia.edu)
With special thanks to Mika Narumi for Japanese translation
36